Sheinbaum-Pardo, Claudia. "Environmental Agenda in the Context of the Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era." Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era: Addressing Emerging Issues in the Global Environment. By , edited by José Antonio AlonsoJosé Antonio Ocampo. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. 283–320. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 24 Sep. 2021.
Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 24 September 2021, 17:56 UTC.
Copyright © United Nations 2015. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 8
Environmental Agenda in the Context of the Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Claudia Sheinbaum-Pardo
1. Introduction
Despite some advance in the last decades, the state of the environment continues to decline. According to the UN Secretary-General in his report to the Preparatory Committee for the Rio+20 “the environmental pillar is perhaps where progress has been the slowest” and that “most indicators of environmental improvement have not demonstrated appreciable convergence with those of economic and social progress; indeed, the overall picture is one of increased divergence” (UN, 2012a). Possibly the phase-out of ozone depleting substances production under the Montreal Protocol, which is expected to lead to a recovery of the ozone layer in the forthcoming decades, is the only example where the impacts are reverting. Overall, however, the global environment continues to show signs of degradation (UNEP, 2013a). Th e present chapter develops a revision of the main problems of the international environmental agreements, and delineates key elements for the post-2015 agenda. Th e roles of technology in sustainable development and mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change have been discussed in a previous CDP book (Alonso et al., 2014). In this chapter the role of sustainable production and consumption in the context of the limits of growth and global environmental agenda is raised.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228383 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:01:50:01 PMPM 284 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
2. Th e state of the environment continues to decline
Aft er the Earth Summit in 1992, three UN conventions were formed to address major global environmental threats: the UN Framework convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertifi cation (UNCCD). Because of their importance we will put more emphasis on these conventions and the problems they address.
2.1. Energy and climate change
Climate change is possibly the most dangerous of all environmental threats. Climate is changing mainly as a result of human activity (IPCC, 2013). Increased use of fossil fuels, particular industrial processes, land use change and heavily fertilized agriculture, have augmented greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their concentration in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature with consequences on sea level, hydrological cycle, and higher presence and intensity of extreme events (IPCC, 2007a; IPCC, 2013). Regardless of the UNFCCC commitment to reduce emissions in order to maintain warming below 2o C to prevent dangerous climate change; there is a significant gap between the actual GHG emission trends and the pathways that are needed to keep the increase in global average temperature, that would require a 50 to 80 percent reduction in global GHG emissions by the year 2050 in relation to 2000 emissions (IPCC, 2007b; IEA, 2012a; IEA, 2012b).
A revision of trends in carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 ) from fossil fuel combustion (that in 2004 represented 57% of GHG emissions) makes this gap
evident. From 1990 to 2011, CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 2 percent/year; and from 2005 to 2011 the years of the Kyoto protocol, the raise was 2.4 percent/year (USEIA, 2013). Emissions could have increased more during this period but the 2009 economic recession represented a global reduction of –0.1 percent from 2008 to 2009. By 2011 China and US contribution was 44 percent (27% and 17% respectively), but total emissions have increased mostly in BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Nevertheless per capita emissions continue to be higher in developed than in developing countries ( Figure 8.1 ).
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228484 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM Environmental Agenda 285
10000
9000
8000 China United States 7000 Russia India 6000 Japan Germany 5000 Iran Korea, South 4000 Canada Saudi Arabia
Million metric tons of CO2 3000 United Kingdom Brazil 2000 Mexico
1000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
25
Saudi Arabia 20 United States Canada Korea, South 15 Russia Japan Germany United Kingdom 10 Iran China Mexico Metric tons of CO2 per capita Brazil 5 India
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 8.1 CO2 emissions from fuel combustion by the 12th top emitting countries Note : In this graph we compare per capita emissions of the top total emitting countries. In 2011, the top emitting countries in per capita emissions were United Arab Emirates; Netherlands Antilles; Trinidad and Tobago; Singapore; Qatar; Kuwait; Bahrain; Luxembourg; Brunei; Saudi Arabia; Nauru; Australia; United States (USEIA, 2013). Source : (USEIA, 2013).
Despite the scientifi c alert (IPCC, 2013), the international community is not responding as fast as it is needed. Th e UNFCCC has not reached a post-Kyoto consensus and eff orts to reduce GHG emissions are by now set voluntarily by National and regional commitments.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228585 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM 286 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
2.2. Biodiversity loss
In the Rio+10 Conference held in Johannesburg in 2002, the world leaders agreed to substantially reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 as “a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefi t of all life on Earth.” However, the target was not met and there are multiple indicators of continuing decline in biodiversity in all three of its main components—genes, species, and ecosystems (Butchart et al., 2010; UNCDB, 2010). In its Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, the UNCBD presented several examples of the decay in biodiversity, some of them are: (a) Species which have been assessed for extinction risk are on average moving closer to extinction. Amphibians face the greatest risk and coral species are deteriorating most rapidly in status, also 40 percent of bird species are declining in population. Nearly 25 percent of plant species are estimated to be threatened with extinction; (b) Th e abundance of vertebrate species, fell by nearly a third on average between 1970 and 2006, and continues to fall globally, with especially severe declines in the tropics and among freshwater species; (c) Crop and livestock genetic diversity continues to decline in agricultural systems (UNCDB, 2010a). In addition to the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols, in 2010, the CDB adopted a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, for the 2011–20 period, whose plan is to consider better goals in the conservation and restoration of biological diversity (UNCDB, 2013; UNEP, 2007).
2.3. Desertifi cation, Land Degradation, and Drought
Other major global environmental problem is Desertifi cation, Land Degradation and Drought (DLDD) resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Desertifi cation refers to land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid areas, where more than 2,000 million inhabitants are found, most of them in developing countries. Dry lands support 50 percent of the world’s livestock, 44 percent of all cultivated land and store 46 percent of the planet’s carbon inventory. Desertifi cation reduces the ability of the land to provide ecosystem services such as production of crops, forage, fuel, and wood as well as the availability and quality of water resources; thus desertifi cation is linked to hunger and food security (Vogt et al., 2011). About half of all dry land inhabitants are poor and marginalized (UNDP, 2013). Climate change is expected to worsen the situation (IPCC, 2007d). Approximately 6 million km 2 of dry lands (about 10%) are already aff ected by desertifi cation (MA, 2005; UNCCD, 2011).
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228686 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM Environmental Agenda 287
2.4. Water and air quality problems
Th ere are other important environmental problems such as air and water quality, inadequate access to clean water and sanitation, air pollution, increased production of hazardous chemicals, etc., that continue to be detrimental to the human condition. Air pollution (out-door and in-door) continues to be a major problem mainly in developing regions. Based on exposure to particulate matter it is estimated that annually between 3.1 and 3.7 million people worldwide die prematurely (UNEP, 2012a; WHO, 2009; Annenberg et al., 2010). Surface ozone air pollution is responsible for an estimated 0.7 million respiratory deaths globally each year, more than 75 percent of which are in Asia (Anenberg et al., 2010; UNEP, 2012a). On the other hand, it is projected that by 2015, 600 million people will still lack access to drinking water and currently about 35 percent of the world population do not have improved sanitation facilities, with poor rural population being the most aff ected. It is estimated that at any given time, over half of the world’s hospital beds are fi lled with people suff ering from water-related diseases (UNDP, 2006; UNEP, 2012a). Diarrheal diseases make up more than 4 percent of the global disease burden, 90 percent being linked to environmental pollution and lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2008; UNEP, 2012a; Olmstead, 2010). Other health problems related to pollution are linked to the intense use of inorganic pesticides and fertilizers. Th e risks are much higher in developing countries where 99 percent of current global deaths from pesticide exposure occur, both from occupational exposure and from casual exposure resulting from lax or absent health and safety controls (UNEP, 2012a). Also, arsenic and mercury pollution in mining areas and their impacts on health have been documented in diff erent parts of the world (WHO, 2009).1
3. A critical review of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)
3.1. A brief account of the MEAs
Th e international community has developed an important set of agreements and institutions that constitute complex international environmental governance (IEG) that includes organizations, policy instruments, fi nancing mechanisms, rules, procedures, and norms that regulate the processes of global environmental
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228787 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM 288 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
protection. International environmental instruments already consist of 1,190 MEAs, 1,500 bilateral environmental agreements, as well as declarations, judicial decisions, and others, most of them since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment that led to the creation of UNEP (Mitchel, 2013; Ved and Pring, 2012). Within this enormous number, it is possible to identify twenty MEAs with global coverage. As a complement to the MEAs, in 1992 the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) was created as a fi nancial mechanism for key international environmental conventions. Since then $11.5 billion USD have been invested directly, $57 billion in co-fi nancing in more than 165 countries (GEF, 2013). Th ere are other environmental funds that operate under the GEF such as the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF); and in other institutions, the Adaptation Fund and the Green Fund. On the other hand, an increase in scientifi c knowledge of the environment has also been promoted by diff erent MEAs (e.g., the assessments developed by the IPCC, the panels and conferences on biodiversity, desertifi cation, ozone depletion, and many others). MEAs are also part of economic international organizations. Since its formation, the General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade (GATT) for example, recognized environmental exceptions for free trade, to protect human, animal, or plant life and health (art. XX para. b), or in relation to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources (art. XX, para. g). An additional recognition to the environment was set up in 1994, with the creation of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) that was incorporated in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in 2001 when a chapter of the Doha Declaration of the WTO was devoted to the negotiations on “trade and environment” (WTO, 2013; Brack and Gray, 2003; Poletti and Sicurelli, 2012). Additionally international eff orts outside the UN and fi nancial international institutions are developing voluntarily mechanisms such as environmental and quality standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), or the promotion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from several fi rms. From this overview it is clear that governments, private organizations, and international organizations, have addressed global and local environmental problems by diff erent mechanisms that go from strength regulations and bans that aff ect international trade, to economic instruments (such as those developed by the Kyoto Protocol or carbon tax developed in EU), and voluntary mechanisms. Th e reality, however, is that the international eff orts to revert environmental degradation have not been enough; or have not been
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228888 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM Environmental Agenda 289
developed in the right directions or do not really address the causes of the decline (Afi onis et al., 2012).
3.2. Strengthen the global institutional framework
Th ere is a large volume of literature on the analysis of IEG and reasons for success and failure particularly on the institutional problems such as insuffi cient coordination, fragmentation of the system; overlapping, confl icting mandates between organizations, lack of a central organization, insuffi cient role of UNEP, etc. (Andersen, 2007; Bierman, 2009; Vogt et al., 2011; Ivanova, 2012; Young, 2012; Vijge, 2013). Th e necessity to strengthen the global institutional framework for sustainable development was addressed in the Resolution of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, titled “Th e future we want” and endorsed by the UN General Assembly (UN, 2012b; UN, 2012c). It promoted the strengthening and upgrading of the UNEP in the following manner: Universal membership; Secure, stable, adequate, and increased fi nancial resources; Fulfi ll its coordination mandate within the United Nations; Promote a strong science-policy interface; Disseminate and share evidence-based environmental information; Provide capacity-building to countries, support, and facilitate access to technology; Progressively consolidate headquarters functions in Nairobi; Ensure the active participation of all relevant stakeholders. Th e fi rst Universal Session of the Governing Council took place in February 2013 (UNEP, 2013b). In addition, the resolution establishes a universal, intergovernmental, high-level political forum in substitution of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD). Th is forum was set up to provide political leadership and recommendations, follow-up and review progress in commitments, enhance the integration of economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, have a focused, dynamic, and action-oriented agenda, and consider new and emerging challenges. It is mandate to meet every four years at the level of Heads of State and Government under the auspices of the General Assembly, and every year under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council—for eight days, including a three-day ministerial segment. It is too soon to analyze the impacts of UN institutional changes, but reforms go in the direction to highlight the environmental pillar, strengthen institutions, and avoid overlap with existing structures, bodies, and entities. How these bodies will enhance MEAs is something that needs to be developed. Also, the relation between environmental governance, MEAs, and the multilateral trading
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 228989 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM 290 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
system needs more covenant eff orts. Under this, although there have been some advances, there is still much more way to go in order to clarify trade limits and their implementation, and to solve disputes in the benefi t of the environment.
3.3. Montreal versus other environmental protocols
Th e Montreal Protocol (MP) is oft en described as the international environmental agreement par excellence. Th e MP successfully led to the phase-out of almost 95 to 98 percent of all chlorofl uorocarbon (CFC) use (Gareau, 2010; Andersen et al., 2013). Th e ozone layer has not grown thinner since 1998 over most of the world, and it appears to be recovering because of reduced emissions of ozone- depleting substances (ODS). Antarctic ozone is projected to return to pre-1980 levels by 2060 to 2075 (USEPA, 2007). Th e phase-out of the use of ODS regulated by MP was made principally by the substitution of CFC through the adoption of hydrochlorofl uorocarbons (HCFCs). Th e HCFCs are also ozone-depleting substances but with much less Ozone Depletion Potential than the CFCs (USEPA, 2010, 2013). Th e most recent adjustments to the MP, adopted in 2007, now accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs—widely used for refrigeration and air-conditioning (Andersen et al., 2013). In addition, there are other gases that are important to control in order
to continue protecting the ozone layer, such as Nitrous oxide (N2 O), but its control is much more diffi cult, because it is widely used for synthetic fertilizers in agriculture (IPCC, 2007c). According to diff erent studies, the achievements in the contention of the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer were due to several factors, some of them: (a) the foundation of stratospheric ozone depletion theory (which was pioneered by Molina and Rowland, 1974); (b) the confi dence of some scientists concerned enough to confront corporate stakeholders; (c) the construction of an international treaty based on the precautionary principle to avoid irreversible eff ects from ozone depletion predicted by a theory, even when not yet proven to the satisfaction of the political and corporate interests; (d) the use of trade measures as one of the enforcement mechanisms (parties to the treaty are required to ban trading with nonparties in ODS) accompanied by (e) fi nance and technology transfer mechanisms to meet the incremental costs of developing country parties in complying with MP requirements (Zhang, 2009; Benedick, 1998; Andersen and Sarma, 2002; Andersen et al., 2013).2 However, some authors suggest that the success of the MP was also deeply entrenched in the economic opportunities for certain multinational fi rms
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229090 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM Environmental Agenda 291
that were made available to phase out CFCs. Big chemical corporations such as Dupont, for example, supported the MP once they valued the economic opportunity of the ODS phase-out (Gerau, 2010). 3 Th is can explain also that many companies phased out far more rapidly than required by the MP and oft en at a lower cost than originally projected by industry and governments (Miller and Mintzer, 1986; Cook, 1996; Le Prestre et al., 1998; Andersen and Sarma, 2002; Andersen et al., 2007; Andresen et al., 2012). Under this review it is fair to raise the following question: Is it possible to address other global environmental problems only by following the MP example? It is of essential importance to take merit of the outstanding achievement of the involved scientists, UNEP, and other national and international institutions in the MP, and the recognition of the relevance of certain implementation instruments; however, from our point of view, the technical and socioeconomical diff erences between the substitution of CFC and other ODS by certain substances; and the changes that are needed to reduce GHGs, biodiversity loss and land degradation, are related to a very diff erent scale in the number of stakeholders, and responses represent very diff erent levels of scale and intensity as compared to the MP. According to the IPCC (2007c) GHG mitigation to avoid dangerous climate change requires technological (accompanied by diff erent regulatory and economic instruments) and behavioral changes made in many diff erent sectors. Not one sector or technology can address the entire mitigation challenge but diff erent technologies and measures from energy to agriculture and forest to waste management are needed in order to contribute to the total reduction of global GHG emissions. Concerning biodiversity loss and the changes in human activities that are linked to it, it is diffi cult, expensive, or impossible to reverse or fi x through only technological solutions (Hooper et al., 2005). Th e main causes of biodiversity loss are land use change (habitat change), overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change, which is expected to become the fi rst or second greatest driver of global biodiversity loss (Hooper et al., 2005; UNCDB, 2010; Heller and Zavaleta, 2009). Th e human activities associated with DLDD are mainly overgrazing, overcultivation, deforestation, poorly planned irrigation systems, and soil pollution from excessive use of chemical fertilizers. Poverty, migration, and political instability are also socioeconomic causes and consequences of land degradation (UNCCD, 2011). Th is implies that the magnitude of organizational, technological, and behavioral changes needed to overturn the environmental damage go beyond the
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229191 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:03:50:03 PMPM 292 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
ones observed on the MP, and also imply deeper changes in the global economic patterns as we know them today. Th is represents threats and challenges for many international corporations related for example to fossil fuels, extractive industries, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. 4 For this reason, many authors sustain that global environmental problems are expressing a deeper crisis in the shape of economic growth, patterns of production, and consumption, and in general, the logic of no limits in the exploitation of natural resources. Th is is not new; it was pointed out since the limits of growth by Meadows et al. (1972), however, the patterns of growth and the environmental declining show that environment continues to be an outsider of the development agenda and the limits of growth continue to be a fundamental question for post-2015 era. A broader approach to these issues is further elaborated in the subsequent sections. From our point of view the IEG needs to recognize these key queries in a broader perspective; otherwise it will continue to gain only marginal success.
4. Th e myths of growth and its importance in global environmental policy
Although many theories regarding human development are in place and under discussion, the dominant view that economy must grow in order for a society to reduce poverty and satisfy its basic needs for present and future generations, still prevails. Th e underlying base of the international divergence toward a Post-Kyoto agreement in the UNFCCC, for example, is the idea that a reduction of GHG gases would compromise economic growth therefore it would jeopardize the infl uence and power of certain countries in the international economy. Th e United States does not agree to reduce GHG emissions if China does not do the same. China argues that absolute emission reduction will compromise the well- being of millions of inhabitants. Th e obligated inquiry is thus the following: is it possible to reduce GHG emission without jeopardizing human well-being?
4.1. Progress and environment
Progress in many aspects of human development has been substantial over the past forty years (UNEP, 2010), but the state of the environment continues to decline. Th e obvious inquiry aft er these opposing trends is whether progress
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229292 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM Environmental Agenda 293
comes at the cost of environmental degradation irremediably. In China for example, the 1,200 percent increase in per capita income over the last forty years
came with a very important increase in per capita CO2 emissions, and several environmental problems (UNDP, 2011; Liu and Diamond, 2005). One approach to this inquiry argues that setting up the right signals to the market, internalizing externalities, 5 and strengthening property rights will solve this predicament. Th is school of thought (rather dominant) postulates that if a stock of nonrenewable resources is consumed, technological innovation and price signals will prevent shortages. Th is leads to the approach of possible substitution between physical, human, and natural stocks 6 (Turner et al., 1994; UNDP, 2011). Another school of thought raises the limits of this approach by questioning the validity of perfect substitution. Some basic natural assets have no real substitutes and thus must be preserved, this is what sets biophysical limits to the growth of economic activities, in view of the irreversibility of certain processes that have triggered an impact on nature (ECLAC et al., 2003). 7 Biodiversity loss is a clear example of irreversibility, not only because of the permanent loss of certain species, but because it harms the ecosystem services, including the access to water and basic materials for a satisfactory life and security (Diaz et al., 2006). Climate change is also an example of irreversibility because the major greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years aft er being released; thus past emissions will have future impacts. Th is brings out another subjacent contradiction of this false dilemma: resource declining and environmental damage caused by human activities reverts on economic growth and human well-being. Environment cannot be later attended; environment has to be understood as part of the development process, otherwise it will harm human well-being.
4.2. Well-being and per capita emissions
Th ere have been several eff orts to develop indicators that express human development in a better way than the traditional indicators of economic progress such as per capita GDP. One of the most important eff orts is the Human Development Index (HDI) developed by UNDP that besides per capita GDP includes health and education performance. Th e World Energy Assessment (Goldemberg, 2000) was one of the fi rst that investigated the relation between per capita energy use and the HDI. We present in Figure 8.2 an adaptation of
WEA fi gure by plotting energy-related per capita CO 2 versus HDI for year 2008
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229393 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM 294 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 8.2 Per capita energy-related CO2 emissions and HDI for 160 countries (2008) Source : UNDP data.
for several countries. As shown, an increase in the HDI might represent an
increase in per capita CO2 because of the need for energy (in this case fossil fuels)
to reduce poverty, however for higher levels, even though per capita CO2 keeps increasing the HDI does not. Th e interpretation of this might be that beyond a
certain point, increased consumption (in this case more CO2 /cap) provides no further increase in well-being (Goldemberg, 2004). Another important point of this fi gure is that if fossil fuels are substituted by renewable energy to increase 8 HDI, overall per capita CO 2 will consequently be reduced.
4.3. Poverty and emission growth
By 2010, around 15 percent of the World’s population lacked access to electricity and about 29 percent of the World’s population relied on the traditional use of biomass. Although energy is not a specifi c MDG, there is a wide consensus that the eradication of extreme poverty as well as the accomplishment of other development goals are linked to the access of modern energy, especially electrifi cation (UN, 2005). In 2010, the IEA and the UNDP developed an assessment on universal access to energy. Results were remarkably interesting. According to this study “to meet the more ambitious target of achieving universal modern energy services by 2030, additional investment of $756 billion or $36 billion of US dollars per year is required. Th is is less than 3 percent of the global
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229494 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM Environmental Agenda 295
energy investment in the New Policies Scenario of IEA to 2030. Th e resulting
increase in primary energy demand and CO2 emissions would be modest. In 2030 global electricity generation would be 2.9 percent higher, oil demand would
have risen less than 1 percent and CO2 emissions would be 0.8 percent higher, as compared to the New Policies Scenario” 9 (IEA, 2010). Of course these estimations are based on a minimum consumption and they will rise if consumption increases. What is important to highlight is that the main
drivers of energy-related CO2 emissions in baseline scenarios are not found in the fulfi llment of basic energy needs but in the assumption of constant energy consumption per household combined with population and GDP increases.
4.4. Per capita GDP and the environmental impact
Th ere is a thesis called the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) that points out that the environmental impact indicator is an inverted U-shaped function of income per capita. Th is hypothesis was raised based on water and air pollution data for diff erent countries (Grossman and Krueger, 1995; Harbaugh et al., 2002; Deacon and Norman, 2006). Some authors have inquired this idea using several environmental indicators, especially GHG emissions, where clearly higher per capita income in general means higher per capita GHG emissions (Stern et al., 1996; Stern, 2004; Asilandis, 2009). According to the ecological footprint methodology, it would take three to four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumes at the level of the average US inhabitant (Wackernagel and Reese, 1996; Wilson, 2002); and GHG emission will reach 3.8 times actual emissions if population in developing countries uses the same amount of fossil fuels per capita that developed countries use (IPCC, 2007c).
4.5. Diff erent paths of growth
Th ere are economic activities that may produce per capita GDP growth and have positive externalities for certain resources such as renewable and energy- effi cient technologies, sustainable management of forests, fi sheries, technology investments for water decontamination or for the reduction of air pollutant emissions, recycling, sustainable tourism, restoration of ecosystems, etc. Th e 2011 HDR showed how among the developing countries, Costa Rica and Philippines for example, have managed to increase per capita GDP as well as other development indicators and at the same time, they rise environmental
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229595 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM 296 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
indicators such as aff orestation, air quality, water access and quality, while still reducing GHG emissions (UNDP, 2011).
4.6. Decoupled environment degradation and GDP growth
Th e most important measure of the economy in terms of increase in its national output is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or including population growth, the per capita GDP. In general, an increase in per capita GDP is related to an increase in production and consumption, but this is not always the case. Figure 8.3 shows for example, per capita GDP versus Per capita energy-related
CO2 emissions for year 2008 (each point is a country). A linear relationship between these variables could be expected since higher income means more appliance, automobiles, etc. Although it is possible to trace a line, it is also
possible to fi nd that many countries have similar CO2 /cap and very diff erent GDP/cap. Th is diff erence might refl ect the participation of fossil fuels in the energy matrix, but also how effi ciently is the energy used by unit of GDP/cap. In fact energy effi ciency technologies make possible the reduction per capita energy use while per capita GDP is increasing. Th is is exactly what happened in OECD countries as a response to the increase in oil prices in the 1970s. Between 1973 and 1985 total energy use per capita in OECD countries fell 6 percent while
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0 GDP/cap (thousand USD 2005 ppp)
0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
tCO2/cap Figure 8.3 Per capita energy-related CO2 emissions and per capita GDP for 160 countries (2008) Source : UNDP data.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229696 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM Environmental Agenda 297
per capita GDP increased 21 percent, a clear dissociation between energy and economic growth (Goldemberg et al., 2004).
4.7. Th e importance and limits of technology
In general, it is possible to affi rm that technology has enabled growing effi ciency of resource use. Th e main criticism to the Meadows et al. (1972) limits of growth is that technology has enabled to extract more and more economic activity for a given unit of natural resource. But technology effi ciency has physical limits ruled by the second law of thermodynamics. At some point, the following question arises; is technology effi ciency enough to meet the very ambitious emission reduction targets proposed by climate scientists? According to Allwood et al. (2013), in the case of industrial energy, within the present conditions of material substitution and technology effi ciency it is simply not possible. According to these authors, the world is reaching the effi ciency limits for certain industrial technological processes, and the ambition to reduce industrial emissions can only be attained through an increase of material effi ciency which includes recycling and reusing components, but also reduction of overall material demand by promoting longer life of products as well as intensifying its use.
5. Drivers and indicators for global environmental policies
While many of the critics on the original limits of growth publication (Medows et al., 1972) were justifi ed, as Turner et al. (1994) pointed out it does not follow that there are no ecological limits on growth. Even in this case the precautionary principle is valid in the sense that even if it is not certain that there are limits to growth it would be prudent to behave as if they were in order to prevent or at least reduce major environmental damages that could seriously aff ect human well-being (Turner et al., 1994). Of course in the logic of the ecological limits of growth and a better environment, human well-being, poverty eradication, and inequalities have to be also at the center of the equation.
5.1. Better indicators for development besides GDP
GDP growth as a symbol of progress is an index that is constructed on the basis of the twentieth-century human development, grounded on modern agriculture,
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229797 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM 298 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
extractive industries, intensive use of fossil fuels and materials, intensive industrialization and growth of production and consumption regardless of what is produced and consumed and at what costs for natural resources. Th ere has been an important debate on the limits of GDP as a measure for human well-being. In the particular case of the environment, one of the most common indicators as an adjustment to GDP is the so-called Green GDP that takes into account the consumption of natural capital as depletion or damage. Th e main limitation of this index is that it will only measure what can be quantifi ed as a product that is sold in the market place. Th e Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi (2010) report reviews diff erent exercises of indicators that have the objective of measuring sustainability, from dashboards to the ecological and carbon footprints, to adjusted net savings (ANS). Th ey suggest that it is diffi cult to establish one indicator for human well-being and environment and that it is better to develop a dashboard of indicators where the environment has its own well-identifi ed sub-dashboard that aff ords access to the signs of change, preservation, or increase in several “stocks” to make long-term considerations for future generations (monetary and physical indicators). Th e report also argues in favor of the Carbon Footprint index being used for climate change.
5.2. Equity
If unequal distribution of income is maintained, a greater increase in GDP is needed to get the poor to access better incomes, this because the economy has to fulfi ll the requirements of the highest income groups (ECLAC, 2002; Rosas et al., 2010). A study for Latin America shows that even very small reductions in inequality can have very large positive impacts in terms of poverty reduction (ECLAC, 2002). In the horizon of the ecological limits of growth, equity acquires an additional value for the environment. Boyse (2007) goes even further when he proposed that wider political and economic inequalities tend to result in higher levels of environmental harm. If policies to redistribute income inequalities are not applied, more GDP will be needed to reduce poverty, meaning more production and consumption, and more impacts to the environment.
Moreover, Figure 8.4 presents a plot of per capita CO2 emissions versus the education and health parts of the HDI for 2008. Putting together this fi gure with the above reasoning it is possible to assert that a more equal distribution of income and investment in those public services can have greater welfare eff ects than generalized growth and at the same time less environmental impacts.10 Th e same is true for a broader concept of inequality, especially regarding gender.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229898 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM Environmental Agenda 299
1.2
1
0.8
0.6 HDI-health 0.4
0.2
0 0246810
tCO2/cap
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
HDI-education 0.4
0.2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
tCO2/cap Figure 8.4 Per capita energy-related CO2 emissions and HDI education and health for 160 countries Sourc e: UNDP data.
Also, this reasoning can also be applied at the international level. A new pathway for sustainable development implied a more equal distribution of wealth among countries.
5.3. Population growth
Population growth continues to be an important driver in global production and consumption growth and it will continue to represent a huge pressure on the environment. Th e dilemma of how to bring employment to new generations
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 229999 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:04:50:04 PMPM 300 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
when the population is growing in an economy that does not grow is of increasing importance. Decent work opportunity is crucial to human well-being and it needs to drive a transformation of the economic system that recognizes the physical limits of growth. In this arena the limits on population growth are also vital. Th ere are a lot of studies and discussions on policies to reduce population growth as well as its linkages to the universal access to reproductive health care and family planning, gender equity, reproductive choice and investments in education, especially for girls and women, who are too oft en left behind. It is not the goal of this chapter to discuss population policies but to highlight its importance in the overall approach of the limits of growth.
5.4. Th e limits of multinational corporations
Multinational corporations (MNCs) are the main actors of globalization. Between 1990 and 2010, the world’s outfl ow of Foreign Direct Investment increased by 450 percent, while world’s GDP increased by 63 percent (World Investment Report cited by Forsgren, 2013). Although the total number of MCs is very high (around 70,000), the global scene is dominated by some few (Forsgren, 2013). MNCs dominate a very important part of the activities and markets that have the larger impacts on the environment (mining, agriculture, fi shing, energy, food, automobiles, chemical, etc.; PWC, 2013). Most of these companies have higher revenues than the GDPs of developing countries (Stiglitz, 2006; Hertz, 2004), and because of this, they have large political power (Stiglitz, 2006). According to several authors, MNCs have brought several benefi ts of globalization to developing countries such as technology transfer, training human resources, job creation, access to international markets, technology developments, etc. (Prahalad and Doz, 1987). According to others, they have brought more poverty than they alleviate (van Tulder and van der Zwart, 2006). Businesses pursue profi ts and therefore MNCs have goals that are directed to the maximization of profi ts (Forsgren, 2013; Stiglitz, 2006, 2007a, 2007b). In the neoclassical theory, companies respond to the market. If consumers buy, producers provide. However, it must be admitted that MNCs act to shape consumer desires in ways that enhance their own profi ts and consumer consumption (Stiglitz, 2006). For this reason, in general, MNCs are against the concept of the limits of growth, because it goes against the principal goal of increasing profi ts by increasing consumption at no limit. It is well documented
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330000 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 301
that many oil and gas companies have lobbied against every international agreement to reduce GHG emissions (Sæverud and Skjærseth, 2007). In the global arena, a less regulated country in terms of taxes, environment, labor, etc., is in principle, much more attractive to FDI than the more regulated ones (Stiglitz, 2006, 2009). Although the discourse of CSR (self-regulation of corporations toward social and environmental goals) has increased in several companies, in general, MNCs act diff erently depending on national regulations. Th ere is evidence, for example, that extractive companies act diff erently depending on environmental regulation and government institutional capacities (Kallis et al., 2012; Bebbington et al., 2008; Urquidi and Walter, 2011; Fanthorpe and Maconachie, 2010). Under this panorama, it is not only important to raise the right of domestic strategies for developing countries (Khor, 2009), but also imperative to develop a system of international environmental standards, regulations, and institutions for environmental justice that generate international rules in favor of sustainable development. Some have argued that environmental international regulation might act against local companies and its insertion in international trade (Khor, 2011). Proper fi nancial and capacity building mechanisms may solve this. However, the worst panorama remains to continue down the same path.
6. Toward an economy for sustainable development and global environmental agenda
6.1. Green economy, steady state economy, and de-growth economy
UNEP defi nes green economy as one that results in “improved human well-being and social equity, while signifi cantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” (UNEP, 2011). Before green economics, many authors have sustained alternative theories and pathways to human well-being and environment such as the steady state economy, the new economics of prosperity, or even economy of degrowth (Daly, 1973, 1996, 2010; Jackson, 2009; NEF, 2009; Schor, 2011; Nørgaard, 1994; Nørgaard et al., 2010; Odum and Odum, 2001; Reese, 2006; Victor, 2010; Kallis et al., 2012; Martínez-Alier, 2009, 2012; Martínez-Alier et al., 2010; Cato, 2009). Th e underlying debate is referred in Section 3.1 of this chapter on weak and strong sustainability.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330101 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 302 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
It is not the goal of this chapter to discuss the diff erence of these approaches, but to recognize that there is a very important international dialogue and debate on how to transform global and national economic systems in a pathway that recognizes the importance of poverty eradication, social equity, and the environment for present and future generations. It should be highlighted however, that from our perspective, there are views that misuse the concept of the “green economy” to “green wash” conventional approaches that do not question the actual patterns of intensive use of natural resources and the inequity in consumption patterns. Th e underlying question of the decoupled between resource consumption and development, is how to promote social welfare with less resources; how to provide well-remunerated employment to young population without intensive industrialization that leads to environmental decay; how to enhance human development and reduce environmental degradation. Th is is of course the core of the international debate on sustainable development and it is only not solved, but there are diff erent answers for diff erent regions and countries. We bring some examples delineated by diff erent authors of new pathways of productive activities for sustainable development, understanding production not as an end in itself but as a mean to fulfi ll social needs.
6.2. Food availability
To meet the world’s future, food availability must grow substantially while, at the same time, activities that provide it, shrink their environmental footprints considerably and adapt to climate change. At least six transformations in agriculture, livestock, and fi sheries production are desirable to reach food availability: (a) Change production technologies and methods toward halting agricultural expansion, closing ‘yield gaps’ on underperforming lands, increasing cropping effi ciency, shift from heavy mechanized with intense use of water, inorganic pesticides and fertilizers to organic systems and precision agriculture; and improvements in livestock management in order to reduce pasture area (Foley et al., 2005; UNDESA, 2013); (b) Recognize the complexity of production systems within diverse social and ecological contexts; (c) Shift from high-input industrial farming and large vessels to traditional systems run by small farmers and fi shers to produce the majority of stable crops and animal protein needed to feed the world population. Th is will require secure land rights, good governance, greater commercialization and integration of small farmers and fi shers into supply chains with infrastructure development (UNEP, 2011);
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330202 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 303
(d) Adoption of more sustainable diets. On average, the number of kilograms of cereal needed to produce 1 kilogram of meat ranges from 2 to 1 for poultry and from 7 to 1 for beef (UNCCD, 2012); and (e) Reduce waste. Approximately one- third of the total food produced for consumption, amounting to 1.3 billion tons per year, is lost or wasted (FAO, 2012), and about 30 percent of total harvested food does not reach the marketplace as a result of quality selection and cosmetic considerations (UN, 2013; IME, 2013). Policies to amend this nonsense have to be one of the main objectives of a new food and agricultural model.
6.3. Sustainable water and forest management
Water demand is expected to exceed supply at present rates of use. Proper investment in ecosystems services and restoration, as well as effi ciency management and use particularly in agriculture, could achieve greater water and sanitation access and meet agriculture and industrial demands under a sustainable scenario. Th is would require investment as well as improvements in institutional arrangements and again, recognition of local communities (UNEP, 2011). Forests are a fundamental part of the earth’s ecological richness, providing many sorts of goods and services. Reduced deforestation and increased forest ecosystem services and goods is possible through the promotion of long-term fi nancial, technological, and training supports and policies for sustainable management that value forest goods in contrast to agriculture and livestock for landowners, promoting other activities with lesser impacts such as ecotourism and agroforestry, and valuing ecosystem services (Merino-Pérez and Barry, 2005; Fisher et al., 2009; FAO, 2010; Toledo-Aceves et al., 2011). Sustainable water and forest management are the fi rst steps in adaptation strategies to climate change.
6.4. Sustainable energy production and consumption
Energy transition to a less environmental impact activity in its production, transformation, and use, meanwhile gaining access to electrifi cation and sustainable use of biomass as well as other fuels is only achievable by huge increases in renewable energy sources, energy effi cient technologies, and a structural change to lesser energy consumption patterns.11 Th ere are several studies that show the possibilities of energy transition toward low carbon pathway (IEA, 2012; IEA, 2013; WEAR, 2013; EU, 2013; IPCC, 2014). However, the increase in energy consumption is related to the patterns of growth discussed
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330303 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 304 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
earlier. Th erefore, sustainable energy has to be linked to material effi ciency, equity, and even demand reduction for the higher consumers. Th ere are several economic instruments such as taxes that help orienting sustainable patterns of consumption and production.
6.5. From energy effi ciency to resource effi ciency
One of the strategies to reduce environmental impacts is increasing resource effi ciency of which material effi ciency is crucial. According to Allwood et al. (2013), material effi ciency includes the following options: (a) Light-weight design; (b) Reducing yield losses; (c) Diverting manufacturing scrap; (d) Reusing components; (e) Longer life of products, and (f) More intense use of products. Other strategies are the shift ing from certain products to others such as e-books rather than paper ones (UNDESA, 2013).
6.6. Sustainable cities
On the other hand, the percentage of global population living in urban areas has reached 50 percent at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century and is expected to reach 60 percent by 2030; the fastest rates of urbanization are found in the developing world (UNHabitat, 2013). It has been calculated that urban areas consume more than 65 percent of the world’s energy and emit 70 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Solecki et al., 2013). Vehicles are the largest source of GHG emissions in most urban areas; for this reason sustainable transportation is central to reduce energy consumption (UNHabitat, 2013). Th e Avoid-Shift -Improve-Finance (ASIF2) framework (Dalkmann and Brannigan, 2007; Mani et al., 2012; Schipper et al., 2000; and Tiwari et al., 2011) helps in understanding diff erent strategies toward sustainable transportation: (1) avoid unnecessary trips, for example through information technologies; (2) shift to more sustainable transport modes, for example public transport and rail for freight; (3) improve performance in all modes; and (4) fi nance investment
in urban development and transport to achieve reduced CO 2 levels and sustainability.12
6.7. Science, technology, and innovation
Technology is not all in pursuing sustainable development but it does not mean that it is highly important to reduce resource consumption. To make a
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330404 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 305
serious attempt to face the social, economic, and environmental challenges of sustainable development, STI must strive to understand both, the natural and the cultural worlds and the way they interact. Taking into account this approach, it is still important for the need to fastest the process of certain technologies introduction to the market, as well as increase technology transfer. For this reason, and important to put in place international eff orts to set up (a) national systems of science, technology, and innovation and (b) policies for technology transfer and dissemination for the benefi ts of all countries, especially patents and trade policies; and (c) social discount rates that are well below market rates in order to accelerate technological change and promote intergenerational equity (Stern, 2007; Ocampo et al., 2011).
7. Lines for an environmental agenda in the context of the global governance and rules for the post-2015 era
Under the panorama explained above, an environmental agenda for the post- 2015 era needs to consider the following elements:
7.1. Build consensus of a new economy for sustainable development
The formulation of a global development agenda post-2015 requires a new international consensus to build environmental sustainability as an integral part of the development process. The concept of green economy and sustainable development that is emerging from the follow-up of the Rio+20 Conference seems to go in this direction. However, further efforts are needed in order to fully modify the economic model of development that wrongly assumes no ecological limits of growth. Under this background some suggestions are:
Moving from per capita GDP to sustainable development indicators : So long as per capita GDP remains as the dominant measure of development for the eradication of poverty, the promotion of equity and addressing the physical limits of growth will continue being of secondary importance. Development goals must include environmental sustainability, poverty eradication, and equity as the focus of policy attention and established targets in these fi elds must guide the actions of international development institutions, especially international fi nancial institutions.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330505 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 306 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Promoting public, social, and private investments for sustainable development: Markets, left to their own logic, will not reorient economies to a more sustainable path. Th e global governance has a role to play in promoting the need for public policies in the strategic transition toward more sustainable economic trajectories that reorient production activities in accordance to the local population and environmental features needs of each country. Public policies are needed to stimulate public, social, and private investments in the path to reduce GHG emissions and pollution, enhance energy, material and resource effi ciency, prevent the loss of biodiversity, and restore ecosystem services. Th ese environmental objectives need to be consistent with job creation, poverty eradication, improved equity, and the recognition of the strategic role of local producers and communities in sustainable agriculture, fi sheries and resource management, sustainable energy and cities, water management and forest, and resource effi ciency. Th e economic transition also requires diff erent methodologies for the estimation of costs that contribute to place social benefi ts ahead of private profi ts. Changing consumption patterns . According to the ecological footprint it would take three to four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumes at the level of the average US inhabitant (Wackernagel and Reese, 1996; Wilson, 2002); and GHG emission will reach 3.8 times actual emissions if population in developing countries uses the same amount of fossil fuels per capita that developed countries use (IPCC, 2007). Technology has enabled growing effi ciency of resource use, but it has its limits and unsustainable lifestyles with excessive consumption of energy, materials, and goods among the richer segments, place enormous pressure on the environment (Allwood et al., 2013). Th e poorer segments, meanwhile, are unable to meet food, health care, shelter, and educational needs. Changing consumption patterns will require focusing on demand, meeting the needs of the poorest, and changing lifestyles and excessive material and energy demands of the richest. Th is requires building a new paradigm of success that is not based on increasing consumption. In the case of energy, carbon taxes have been discussed widely as an economic instrument to accelerate energy transition toward a low carbon economy (Parry et al., 1999; Shah and Larsen, 2014). Application of this instrument might be diff erent depending on the country, especially in developing countries. Recognize the importance of equality for the environment : Th rough various channels, policies to improve the distribution of wealth act in favor of the environment. Persisting unequal distribution of income imply that a greater
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330606 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 307
increase in GDP is needed to get the poor to access better incomes (ECLAC, 2002; Rosas et al., 2010), with deleterious consequences to the environment if current consumption and production patters are maintained. Th is is true at the National level but also among countries. Gender equality is also catalytic to social, economic, and environmental progress, and therefore it should be well integrated into sustainable development policies, strategies, and action plans (UNDP, 2013c). Investments in education, especially for girls and women and universal access to reproductive health care and family planning must be high in an agenda for sustainable development. Th is is the best approach to reduce population growth that will make an important contribution to sustainable development. Improved access to education and health enhances human development, creates informed citizens, and represents a critical investment in human capital that is essential for a more demanding development path. Moreover, in the context of pluri- ethnic and multicultural societies, a strategy for sustainable development needs to recognize the rights of indigenous communities to the land, natural resources, ethnic identity, and cultural heritage; as well as their right to participate in the decisions that aff ect them.
7.2. International environmental regulations and standards
Environmental problems do not have frontiers, especially when looking at the global environmental problems. It is absurd that countries compete for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) or that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) look for countries to develop their investments, based on less environmental regulation. Th e IEG needs to develop a system that promotes international standards and regulations, not only for products but also for production processes that limit the FDI based on no regulation to protect the environment. Th is is especially important for extraction activities. Conventions need to start developing protocols on this matter and WTO and PTAs require recognizing them. Th e best technologies and practices need to be available for all, and limits to the maximization of profi ts on behalf of the environment need to be set.
7.3. Strengthen global environmental justice
In the broadest perspective, the recognition of the linkages between environment and human well-being leads to acknowledge the fundamental right to the protection of a healthy environment as a human right. Environmental law, jurisprudence, and environmental governance are central to resolving problems
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330707 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 308 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
of environmental justice. Th e recognition of environmental problems in current international justice institutions and even the possibility of an International Environmental Court is a central issue to strengthen global environmental governance (UNEP, 2013b). Today there is no international body with delegated authority to enforce international environmental regulations. Th e protection of fragile ecosystems, the sustainable use of natural resources in the global commons, and the improved management of trans-boundary resources are areas of special concern in the development of a global mechanism for environmental governance.
7.4. Strengthen global institutional framework
Th e need to strengthen the global institutional framework for sustainable development was addressed in the Resolution of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Th is brought out the strength of the UNEP, and the creation of a universal, intergovernmental high-level political forum. Th is reform goes in the direction to highlight the environmental view, strengthen institutions, and avoid overlap with existing structures, bodies, and entities and in the move to a more coherent international framework. Global eff orts to strengthen these international bodies and initiatives such as sustainable development objectives post-2015 are highly important to enhance global environmental governance. How these bodies will support environmental conventions is something that needs to be developed. Also, the relation between environmental governance and the multilateral trading system needs more covenant eff orts. Th ere is still much more way to go in order to clarify trade limits and their implementation, and to solve disputes in the benefi t of the environment.
7.5. New common but diff erentiated responsibilities
Increasing diff erentiation among developing countries is part of the new international scene. Mechanisms of global governance for sustainable development especially to reach a new international consensus in the UNFCCC will have to give proper interpretation to the concept of common but diff erentiated responsibilities in recognition to the variety of development trajectories across countries and their responsibility based on historic emissions, current and projected total, and per capita emissions.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330808 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 309
7.6. Science and technology for all
Developing the capacity to innovate and have access to technology are crucial for reducing the wide developmental gaps that exist between developing and developed countries. Th is requires strengthening the capacity of developing countries to develop, review, and implement education, science, technology, and innovation oriented toward nationally relevant responses to the challenges they face in relation to climate change, the preservation of biodiversity, and reducing and avoiding desertifi cation. Under the barriers for technology transfer it is important to recognize the increasingly globalized protection of intellectual property rights on the ability of countries to provide their citizens with basic research, education, public health, and environmental protection (Maskus and Reichman, 2005). A new international system is needed in the recognition of the links between international public goods and transfer of technology. Keeping and strengthening the precautionary principle is also essential in MEAs.
7.7. Finance and support for sustainable development
Depending on the methodology used, the estimation of fi nancing needs to support sustainable development strategies varies wildly but they all coincide to predict high fi nancing costs. Several mechanisms of fi nancing have been discussed in recent years but serious commitments are still to be made if environmental sustainability is to be eff ectively integrated into a new development paradigm. In the allocation of resources, clear priority should be given to the poorest countries, as well as those more likely to be aff ected by climate change. In the allocation of resources traditional development goals, such as access to water and sanitation, electrifi cation, but also reduction of air and water pollution in cities of middle- income countries, should be made compatible with sustainable management of natural resources both as a policy to reduce poverty and as a strategy for adaptation to climate change. In fact, sustainable resource management is the fi rst step to attend adaptation strategies for climate change.
N o t e s
1 In January 2013 governments took a major step forward to begin lift ing the health and environmental impacts of mercury, including its most toxic forms, by agreeing a global Convention, Minamata Convention, covering emissions and releases.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 330909 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 310 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
2 Th e history of the Montreal protocol, background, importance and the role of scientists, negotiations, problems and success is brilliantly exposed in Andresen, Sarma and Sinclair, 2002. 3 Th e diff erence in the control of CFC used mainly as aerosol product and the more diffi cult control of methyl bromide used as a pesticide (both ODSs under control in the MP) is presented as an example (DuPuis and Gareau, 2008). 4 Th is in part explains the dissimilarity in the position of the US government in the MP and the Kyoto Protocol (Sunstein, 2007), and the role of US fossil fuel industry in Washington’s rejection to any international agreement to reduce GHG emissions (Sæverud and Skjærseth, 2007). 5 Environmental externalities refer to the “uncompensated environmental eff ects of production and consumption that aff ect consumer utility and enterprise cost outside the market mechanism” (OECD, 2013). As a consequence of negative externalities, private costs of production tend to be lower than its “social” cost. 6 Th is school of thinking is known as the weak sustainability. 7 Th is is called the strong sustainability view (Heidiger, 1999). 8 A critique to this interpretation is that in general per capita GDP weights more for higher HDI countries where the health and education part of the index has been obtained. Despite this important point that questions the validity of the HDI itself, this suggests that there is not always a positive relation between fossil fuel consumption and human well-being. 9 Th ese estimations are based on a minimum electricity consumption of 250 kWh/ year in rural areas and 500 kWh/year in urban areas and 22 Kg of LPG per person per year (in comparison, average US consumption per household in 2011 was 11, 280 kWh of electricity/year and 900 kg of LPG/year). 10 Similar reasoning for happiness is considered in Kallis et al., 2012. 11 Biofuels production must grow in a sustainable way. Th ere is no space in this chapter for this discussion but for more about this see 12 A very good example of the positive synergies that a consumption pattern brings in the energy sector is the shift from larger and heavier vehicles to smaller cars (Schipper and Lilliu, 1999; Cuenot, 2009; Meyer and Wessely, 2009; Sheinbaum- Pardo and Chávez-Baheza, 2012).
References
Afi onis, Stavros, Steinar Andresen, Elin Lerum Boasson, and Geir Hønneland (eds.) (2012). International Environmental Agreements: An Introduction. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics , 1–5. AIE, UNDP (2010). Energy Poverty. How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal . IEA, Paris. 9781472580702_Ch08_Rev_txt_prf.indd 310 4/22/2015 11:24:47 PM Environmental Agenda 311
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331010 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 311
Allwood, Julian, M., Michael F. Ashby, Timothy G. Gutowski, and Ernst Worrell (2013). Material Effi ciency: Providing Material Services with Less Material Production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 371, p. 1986. Alonso, Jose Antonio, Giovanni A. Cornia, and Rob Vos (eds.) (2013). Alternative Development Strategies for the Post-2015 Era . New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Álvarez Buylla, Roces Elena Alma Elena, and Alma Piñeyro (2009). Riesgos y peligros de la dispersión de maíz transgénico en México. Ciencias, vol. 92, octubre-marzo, pp. 82–96. Álvarez-Buylla Roces Elena Alma Elena, and Alma Piñeyro (2010). Riesgos y peligros de la dispersión del maíz transgénico en México. Ciencias , vol. 92, no. 092. Andersen, Stephen, Madhava Sarma, and Lani Sinclair (2002). Protecting the Ozone Layer: Th e United Nations History . London: Earthscan Publications London. Andersen, Stephen, Marcel L. Halberstadt, and Nathan Borgford-Parnell (2013). Stratospheric Ozone, Global Warming, and the Principle of Unintended Consequences—An Ongoing Science and Policy Success Story. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association , vol. 63, no. 4. pp. 607–47. Andresen, Steinar (2007). Th e Eff ectiveness of UN Environmental Institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics , vol. 7, pp. 317–36. Andresen, Steinar, Elin Lerum Boasson, and Geir Hønneland (eds) (2012). International Environmental Agreements: An Introduction . London: Routledge. Anenberg, Susan, Jason West, Larry W. Horowitz, and Daniel Q. Tong (2010). An Estimate of the Global Burden of Anthropogenic Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter on Premature Human Mortality Using Atmospheric Modeling. Environmental Health Perspectives , vol. 118, no. 9, pp. 1189–95. Aslanidis, Nektarios (2009). Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon Emissions: A Critical Survey . Nota di lavoro // Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Sustainable development, No. 75.2009. Bebbington, Anthony, Denise Humphreys Bebbington, Jeff rey Bury, Jannet Lingan, Juan Pablo Muñoz, and Martin Scurrah (2008). Mining and Social Movements: Struggles over Livelihood and Rural Territorial Development in the Andes. World Development , vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2888–2905. Benedick Richard E. (1998). Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet (enlarged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Biermann Frank, Philippe Pattberg, Harro Van Asselt, and Fariborz Zelli (2009). Th e Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 14–40. Brack, Duncan and Kevin Grey (2003). Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO . Th e Royal Institute for International Aff airs and International Institute for Sustainable Development. Bradshaw Corey J. A., Navjot S. Sodhi, Kelvin S. H. Peh, and Barry W. Brook (2007). Global Evidence that Deforestation Amplifi es Flood Risk and Severity in the Developing World. Global Change Biology , vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2379–95.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331111 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM 312 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Butchart Stuart H. M., Matt Walpole, Ben Collen, Arco van Strien, Jörn P. W. Scharlemann, Rosamunde E. A. Almond, Jonathan E. M. Baillie, Bastian Bomhard, Claire Brown, John Bruno, Kent E. Carpenter, Geneviève M. Carr, Janice Chanson, Anna M. Chenery, Jorge Csirke, Nick C. Davidson, Frank Dentener, Matt Foster, Alessandro Galli, James N. Galloway, Piero Genovesi, Richard D. Gregory, Marc Hockings, Valerie Kapos, Jean- Francois Lamarque, Fiona Leverington, Jonathan Loh, Melodie A. McGeoch, Louise McRae, Anahit Minasyan, Monica Hernández Morcillo, Th omasina E. E. Oldfi eld, Daniel Pauly, Suhel Quader, Carmen Revenga, John R. Sauer, Benjamin Skolnik, Dian Spear, Damon Stanwell-Smith, Simon N. Stuart, Andy Symes, Megan Tierney, Tristan D. Tyrrell1, Jean-Christophe Vié, Reg Watson (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, vol. 328. no. 5982, pp. 1164–8. Cato, Molly-Scott (2009). Green Economics: An Introduction to Th eory, Policy, and Practice . Earthscan. Cheung, William W. L., Vicky W. Y. Lam, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Kelly Kearney, Reg Watson, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel Pauly (2010). Large-scale Redistribution of Maximum Fisheries Catch Potential in the Global Ocean under Climate Change. Global Change Biology , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–35. Cook, Elizabeth (1996). Ozone Protection in the United States: Elements of Success . Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Corbera, Esteve and Noelia Jover (2012). Th e Undelivered Promises of the Clean Development Mechanism: Insights from Th ree Projects in Mexico. Carbon Management , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 39–54. Cuenot, Francoise (2009). CO2 Emissions from New Cars and Vehicle Weight in Europe; How the EU Regulation Could Have Been Avoided and How to Reach It? Energy Policy , vol. 37, pp. 3832–42. Dalkmann, Holger and Charlotte Brannigan (2007). Transport and Climate Change, Module 5e, Sustainable Transport, a Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities, GTZ Global . Eschborn, Germany: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Daly, Herman E. (1973). Towards a Steady-state Economy . San Francisco: Freeman. Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond Growth. Th e Economics of Sustainable Development. Th e Economy as an Isolated System . Boston: Beacon Press. Daly, Herman E. (2010). From a Failed-growth Economy to a Steady-state Economy. Solutions 1 , pp. 37–43. Deacon, Robert T. and Catherine S. Norman (2006). Does the Environmental Kuznets Curve Describe How Individual Countries Behave? Land Econ ., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 291–315. DuPuis, E. Melanie and Brian J. Gareau (2008). Neoliberal Knowledge: Th e Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol. Social Science Quarterly , vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 1212–29. ECLAC, IPEA, and UNDP (2002). Meeting the Millenium Poverty Reduction Targets in Latin America y el Caribe . Santiago de Chile.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331212 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:05:50:05 PMPM Environmental Agenda 313
ECLAC, OLADE, and GTZ (2003). Energy and Sustainable Development for Latin America and the Caribbean . Santiago de Chile. European Union (EU) (2013). Th e EU Climate and Energy Package ; available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/ Fanthorpe, Richard and Roy Maconachie (2010). Beyond the “Crisis of Youth”? Mining, Farming, and Civil Society in Post-war Sierra Leone. African Aff airs , vol. 109, no. 435, pp. 251–72. FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome; available at: www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010 FAO (2011). Th e State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW)—Managing Systems at Risk, FAO, Rome and Earthscan, London. FAO (2012). Food Wastage Footprints. Factsheet; available at: http://www.fao.org/ fi leadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_FOODWASTAGE.pdf. Fisher, Bredan, R. Kerry Turner, and Paul Morling (2009). Defi ning and Classifying Ecosystem Services for Decision Making. Ecological Economics , vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 643–53. Foley, Jonathan. A., Ruth DeFries, Gregory P. Asner, Carol Barford, Gordon Bonan, Stephen R. Carpenter, F. Stuart Chapin, Michael T. Coe1, Gretchen C. Daily, Holly K. Gibbs, Joseph H. Helkowski, Tracey Holloway, Erica A. Howard, Christopher J. Kucharik, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan A. Patz, I. Colin Prentice, Navin Ramankutty, Peter K. Snyder (2005). Global Consequences of Land Use. Science , vol. 309, no. 5734, pp. 570–4. Forsgren, Mats (2013). Th eories of the Multinational Firm: A Multidimensional Creature in the Global Economy . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gareau, Brian J. (2010). A Critical Review of the Successful CFC Phase-out versus the Delayed Methyl Bromide Phase-out in the Montreal Protocol. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics , vol. 10, pp. 209–31. George, Micheal W. (2012). 2011 Minerals Yearbook , Gold. USGS, available at: http:// minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gold/myb1–2011-gold.pdf Global Environmental Fund (GEF) (2013). About GEF, available at: http://www.thegef. org/gef/whatisgef Goldemberg, Jose (Coo) (2000). World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability . United Nations Pubns. Goldemberg, Jose (2004). Development and Energy Overview in Encyclopedia of Energy . In Cleveland (ed.), New York: Elsevier, pp. 801–7. Gomiero, Tiziano, David Pimental, and Maurizio G. Paoletti (2011). Environmental Impact of Diff erential Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences , vol. 30, nos. 1–2, pp. 95–124. Grossman, Gene M. and Alan B. Krueger (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. Q. J. Econ. vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 353–75. Gupta, Aarti and Robert Falkner (2006). Th e Infl uence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 23–55.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331313 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM 314 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Harbaugh, William, Arik Levinson, and David M. Wilson (2002). Re-examining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve. Rev. Econ. Stat., vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 541–51. Hediger, Werner (1999). Reconciling “Weak” and “Strong” Sustainability. International Journal of Social Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. Q. J. Econ ., vol. 110, pp. 353–75. Heller, Nicole E. and Erika S. Zavaleta (2009). Biodiversity Management in the Face of Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Recommendations. Biological Conservation , vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 14–32. Hertz, Noreena (2004). Corporations on the Front Line. Corporate Governance , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 202–9. Hooper, D. U., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J. H. Lawton, D. M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Setälä, A. J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer, and D. A. Wardle (2005). Eff ects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Function: A Consensus of Current Knowledge. Ecological Monographs , vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 3–35. Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) (2013). Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not . London. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Th e Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , Susan Solomon, Dahe Qin, Martin Manning, Zhenlin Chen, Melinda Marquis, Kristen B. Averyt, Melinda Tignor, and Henry Leroy Miller (eds). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2007b). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Bernstein Lenny, Peter Bosch, Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, Renate Christ, Ogunlade Davidson, William Hare, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Vladimir Kattsov, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Jian Liu, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Bettina Menne, Bert Metz, Monirul Mirza, Neville Nicholls, Leonard Nurse, Rajendra Pachauri, Jean Palutikof, Martin Parry, Dahe Qin, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Andy Reisinger, Jiawen Ren, Keywan Riahi, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Matilde Rusticucci, Stephen Schneider, Youba Sokona, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, Ronald Stouff er, Taishi Sugiyama, Rob Swart, Dennis Tirpak, Coleen Vogel, Gary Yohe. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2007c). Climate Change 2007: Technical Summary Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Metz Bert, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer (eds.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2007d). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Martin L. Parry, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Jean. Palutikof, Paul van der Linden, and Claire E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY. USA: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2013). Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fift h Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: Th e Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers ,
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331414 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM Environmental Agenda 315
available at: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_ Approved27Sep2013.pdf International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012a). Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, Pathways to a Clean Energy System . OECD/IEA, Paris, France. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012b). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Highlights . OECD/IEA, Paris, France. Ivanova, Maria (2012). Institutional Design and UNEP Reform: Historical Insights on Form, Function and Financing. International Aff airs , vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 565–84. Jackson, Tim (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan. Johansson, Th omas (2012). Keynote Address at the 10th Anniversary of the Global Climate & Energy Project Creating a Bright Energy Future—GCEP at 10 Years 9781472580702_Ch08_Rev_txt_prf.indd 314 4/22/2015 11:24:48 PMEnvironmental Agenda 315cStanford University; available at: http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/ symposium2012/Th omasJohansson_Symp2012_web.pdf Kallis, Giorgos, Christian Kerschner, and Joan Martinez-Alier (2012). Th e Economics of Degrowth. Ecological Economics , vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 172–80. Khor, Martin (2009). Th e Food Crisis, Climate Change and the Importance of Sustainable Agriculture . Environment & Development Series no. 8. Th ird world network (TWN). Khor, Martin (2011). Risks and Uses of the Green Economy Concept in the Context of Sustainable Development, Poverty and Equity. South Centre; available at: http:// www.twnside.org.sg/title2/uncsd2012/RP40_GreenEcon_concept_MKJul11.pdf Klapwijk, Philip, Neil Meader, Philip Newman, William Tankard, Peter Ryan, Cameron Alexander, Rhona O’Connell, Junlu Liang, Marcin Szczypka, Matthew Piggott, George Coles, Saida Litosh, Sudheesh Nambiath, (2012). Gold Survey 2012. London, United Kingdom: Th omson Reuters GFMS Ltd. Le Prestre, Philippe G., John D. Reid, and E. Th omas Morehouse (1998). Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models and Prospects . Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Liu, Jianguo and Jared Diamond (2005). China’s Environment in a Globalizing World. Nature , vol. 435, no. 7046, pp. 1179–86. Lu, Bao Rong and Allison A. Snow (2005). Gene Flow from Genetically Modifi ed Rice and Its Environmental Consequences. BioScience , vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 669–78. Mani, Akshay, Madhav Pai, and Rishi Aggarwal (2014). Sustainable Urban Transport in India: Role of the Auto-rickshaw Sector . World Resources Institute, EMARQ; available at: http://pdf.wri.org/sustainable_urban_transport_india.pdf. (accessed December 1, 2014). Martinelli, Luiz A. and Solange Filoso (2008). Expansion of Sugarcane Ethanol Production in Brazil: Environmental and Social Challenges. Ecological Applications , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 885–98. Martinez-Alier, Joan (2009). Socially Sustainable Economic De-growth. Development and Change , vol. 40, pp. 1099–1119. Martinez-Alier, Joan (2012). Environmental Justice and Economic Degrowth: An Alliance between Two Movements. Capitalism Nature Socialism , vol. 23, pp. 51–73.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331515 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM 316 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Martinez-Alier, Joan., Unai Pascual, Franck-Dominique Vivien, and Edwin Zaccai (2010). Sustainable De-growth: Mapping the Context, Criticisms and Future Prospects of an Emergent Paradigm. Ecological Economics , vol. 69, pp. 1741–7. Meadows, Donella H., Demisse H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III (1972). Th e Limits to Growth: A Report to Th e Club of Rome. New York: Universe Books. Merino-Pérez, Leticia and Deborah Barry (2005). Th e Community Forests of Mexico . D. B. Bray (ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Meyer, Ina and Stephan Wessely (2009). Fuel Effi ciency of the Austrian Passenger Vehicle Fleet—Analysis of Trends in the Technological Profi le and Related Impacts on CO2 Emissions. Energy Policy , vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 3779–89. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertifi cation Synthesis . World Resources Institute: Washington, DC; available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.355.aspx. pdf9781472580702_Ch08_Rev_txt_prf.indd 315 4/22/2015 11:24:48 PM Miller, Alan and Iriving Mintzer (1986). Th e Sky Is the Limit: Strategies for Protecting the Ozone Layer . Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Mitchel, Ronald B. (2013). Th e International Environemnatl Agreement Data Project ; available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu Molina, Mario and Frank Sherwood Rowland (1974). Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofl uoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-catalyzed Destruction of Ozone. Nature , vol. 249, no. 5460, pp. 810–12. NEF (2009). Growth Isn’t Possible . London: New Economics Foundation. Nicholls, Richard J. T, Frank M. Hoozemans, and Marcel Marchand (1999). Increasing Flood Risk and Wetland Losses Due to Global Sea-level Rise: Regional and Global Analyses. Global Environmental Change , vol. 9, pp. S69–S87. Nørgård, Jørgen Stig John Peet, and Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir (2010). Th e History of the Limits to Growth. Solutions Journal: For a Sustainable and Desirable Future , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 59–63. Norgaard, Richard B. (1994). Development Betrayed: Th e End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future . London: Routledge. Ocampo, Jose Antonio, Aaron Cosbey, and Martin Khor (2010). Th e Transition to a Green Economy: Benefi ts, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective. In Report by a Panel of Experts to Second Preparatory Committee Meeting for United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Division for Sustainable Development, UNDESA. Odum, Howarth T. and Elisabeth C. Odum (2001). A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies . Colorado: University Press of Colorado. OECD (2013). Glossary of Statistical Terms ; available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/ detail.asp?ID=824 Olmstead, Sheila M. ( 2010). Th e Economics of Water Quality. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 44–62. Palmer, Margaret A., E. S. Bernhardt, W. H. Schlesinger, K. N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula- Georgiou, M. S. Hendryx, A. D. Lemly, G. E. Likens, O. L. Loucks, M. E. Power, P. S.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331616 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM Environmental Agenda 317
White, and P. R. Wilcock (2010). Mountaintop Mining Consequences. Science , vol. 327, no. 5962, pp. 148–9. Parry, Ian W., Roberton C. Williams III, and Lawrence H. Goulder (1999). When Can Carbon Abatement Policies Increase Welfare? Th e Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 52–84. Poletti, Arlo and Daniella Sicurelli (2012). Th e EU as Promoter of Environmental Norms in the Doha Round. West European Politics , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 911–32. Prahalad, Coimbatore Krishna and Yves Doz (1987). Th e Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and the Global Vision. New York: Free Press. 9781472580702_Ch08_ Rev_txt_prf.indd 316 4/22/2015 11:24:48 PM Environmental Agenda 317 Pruss-Ustun, Anette, Robert Bos, Fiona Gore, and Jamie Bartram (2008). Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, Benefi ts and Sustainability of Interventions to Protect and Promote Health . World Health Organization, Geneva; available at: http://www.who. int/quantifying_Ehimpacts/publications/saferwater/en/index.html PWC (2013). Global Top 100 Companies by Market Capitalization ; available at: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/audit-services/capital-market/publications/top100- marketcapitalisation.Jhtml Rees, William E. (2006). Ecological Footprints and Biocapacity: Essential Elements in Sustainability Assessment. Renewables-based Technology: Sustainability Assessment, pp. 143–57. Rosas, Jorge, Claudia Sheinbaum, and David Morillon (2010). Th e Structure of Household Energy Consumption and Related CO2 Emissions by Income Group in Mexico. Energy for Sustainable Development , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 127–33. Sæverud, Ingvild Andreassen; and Jon Birger Skjærseth (2007). Oil Companies and Climate Change: Inconsistencies between Strategy Formulation and Implementation? Global Environmental Politics , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 42–62. Schipper, Lee and Celine Lilliu (1999). More Motion, More Speed, More Emissions: Will Increases in Carbon Emissions from Transport in IEA Countries Turn Around? In Energy Effi ciency and CO2 Reductions: Th e Dimensions of the Social Challenge, ECEEE 1999 Summer Study (LBNL-43747). Schipper, Lee, Celine Marie-Lilliu, and Roger Gorham (2000). Flexing the Link between Transport and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Path for the World Bank . Paris: International Energy Agency. Schipper, Lee, Lynn Scholl, and Lynn Price (1997). Energy Use and Carbon Emissions from Freight in 10 Industrialized Countries: An Analysis of Trends from 1973 to 1992. Transp Res D: TranspEnviron , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 57–76. Schor, Juliet B. (2011). True Wealth: How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time-rich, Ecologically Light, Small-scale, High-satisfaction Economy. New York: Penguin. Shah, Anuar and Bjorn Larsen (2014). Carbon Taxes, the Greenhouse Eff ect, and Developing Countries. Annals of Economics and Finance , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 353–412. Sheinbaum-Pardo, Claudia and Carlos Chávez-Baheza (2011). Fuel Effi ciency of New Cars in Mexico: Trends from 1988 to 2008. Energy Policy , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 153–62.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331717 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM 318 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
Solecki, William, Karen C. Seto, and Peter J. Marcotullio (2013). It’s Time for an Urbanization Science. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, vol. 55, pp. 12–17. Stern, David I. (2004). Th e Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1419–39. Stern, David I., Michael S. Common, and Edward B. Barbier (1996). Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: Th e Environmental Kuznets Curve and Sustainable Development. World Development , vol. 24, pp. 1151–60. Stern, Nicholas N. H. (ed.) (2007). Th e Economics of Climate Change: Th e Stern Review . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2006). Making Globalization Work . New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2007a). Multinational Corporations: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities . Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc 101: 3. Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2007b). Regulating Multinational Corporations: Towards Principles of Cross-Border Legal Frameworks in a Globalized World Balancing Rights with Responsibilities. American University International Law Review , vol. 7, pp. 453–558. Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya K. Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi (2010). Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress . New York: New Press. Sunstein, Cass R. (2007). Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev . vol. 31, no. 1. Tiwari, Reena, Robert Cervero, and Lee Schipper (2011). Driving CO2 Reduction by Integrating Transport and Urban Design Strategies. Cities, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 394–405. Toledo-Aceves, Tarin, Jorge A. Meave, Mario González-Espinosa, and Neptali Ramírez- Marcial (2011). Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Current Th reats and Opportunities for Th eir Conservation and Sustainable Management in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management , vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 974–81. Turner, R. Kerry, David Pearce, and Ian Bateman (1994). Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction . Harvester Wheatsheaf. UN (2005). Th e Energy Challenge for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals; available at http://www.un-energy.org/sites/default/fi les/share/une/un-enrg_paper.pdf UN (2012a). UN Secretary General Report to the Preparatory Committee for the Rio+20 (A/CONF.216/PC/2); available at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/ TMP/2840371.72794342.html UN (2012b). Resolution Adopted by the UN General Assembly. 66/288. Th e Future We Want. UN (2012c). Resolution Adopted by the UN General Assembly. 67/213 UNEP. UN (2013). World Economic Situation and Prospects 2013. Sales No. E.13.II.C.2. UNCBD (2010b). Strategic Plan 2011–2020; available at: http://www.cbd.int/sp/ UNCBD (2013a). Th e Cartagena Protocol on Bioseft y; available at: http://bch.cbd.int/ protocol/ UNCBD (2013b). Th e Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefi t-sharing; available at: http://www.cbd.int/abs/
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331818 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM Environmental Agenda 319
UNCCD (2011). Desertifi cation: A Visual Synthesis; available at: http://www.unccd.int/ Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Publications/Desertifi cation-EN.pdf UNCCD (2012). Worsening Factors. Bonn: UNCCD Secretariat; available at: http://www. unccd.int/en/programmes/Th ematic-Priorities/Food-Sec/Pages/Wors-Fact.aspx. UNCCD (2013a). Preliminary Conference Report. Th e Synthesis and Recommendations Version 15.04.2013 Draft prepared by Global Risk Forum GRF Davos; available at: http://2sc.unccd.int/conference-documents/ preliminaryconference-report/ UNCCD (2013b). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi Biodiversity Targets; available at: https://www.cbd.int/sp/ UN Convention of Biological Diversity (UNCBD) (2010a). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montréal. UN Department of Economic and Social Aff airs (2013). World Economic and Social Survey 2013. Sustainable Development Challenges. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2006). Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global. UNDP (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. UNDP (2013a). Sustainable Land Management; available at: http://www.undp.org/ content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/focus_areas/sustainable_ landmanagement.html UNDP (2013b). Human Development Report 2013. Th e Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. UNDP (2013c). Powerful DSynergies Gender Equality, Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2007). Global Environmental Outlook Geo 4. Nairobi. UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication; available at: www.unep.org/greeneconomy UNEP (2012a). Global Environmental Outlook Geo 5. Nairobi. UNEP (2012b). Advancing Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability. UNEP (2013a). UNEP Year Book: Emerging Issues in Our Global Environment; available at: http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2013 UNEP (2013b). Proceedings of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum at its First Universal Session; available at: http://www.unep.org/gc/gc27/ UNFCCC (2013). Annex 1 countries inventories of GHG; available at; http://unfccc.int/ ghg_data/items/3800.php UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). 2012. CDM Report. UN Habitat (2013). Time to Th ink Urban. 24th Session Governing Council. Nairobi. April. Urkidi, L. and M. Walter (2011). Dimensions of Environmental Justice in Anti-gold Mining Movements in Latin America. Geoforum , vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 683–95.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 331919 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM 320 Global Governance and Rules for the Post-2015 Era
US Energy Information Administration. 2013. International Database. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2007). Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Progress Report. USEPA Offi ce of Air and Radiation Washington, DC. USEPA (2010). Proposed Air Pollution Transport Rule. USEPA Offi ce of Air and Radiation ; available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/pdfs/ TRPresentationfi nal_7–26_webversion.pdf USEPA (2013). Ozone Layer Protection; available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html van Tulder, Rob and Alex van der Zwart (2006). International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization. New York: Taylor and Francis. Ved, Nanda and George R. Pring (2012). International Environmental Law and Policy for the 21st Century (2nd revised edition). Th e Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Victor, Peter (2010). Questioning Economic Growth. Nature , vol. 468, pp. 370–1. Vijge, Marjanneke J. (2013). Th e Promise of New Institutionalism: Explaining the Absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation. Int Environ Agreements , vol. 13, pp. 153–76. Vogt, J. V., U. Safriel, G. Von Maltitz, Y. Sokona, R. Zougmore, G. Bastin, and J. Hill (2011). Monitoring and Assessment of Land Degradation and Desertifi cation: Towards New Conceptual and Integrated Approaches. Land Degradation and Development , vol. 22, no. 2, pp.150–65. Wackernagel, Mathis and William E. Rees (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth . Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. WHO (2009). Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. World Health Organization, Geneva; available at: http:// whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241563871_Eng.pdf WHO (2011). Arsenic in Drinking-water. Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/75/Rev/1; available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/arsenic.pdf Wiener, Jonathan B. and John D. Graham (2009). Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoff s in Protecting Health and the Environment . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E. O. (2002). Th e Future of Life . New York: Alfred A. Knopf. World Trade Organization (WTO) (2013). Th e Doha Mandate on Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Yimin, Yee, Kevern Cochrane, Gabriella Bianchi, Rolf Willmann, Jacek Majkowski, Merete Tandstad, and Fabio Carocci (2013). Rebuilding Global Fisheries: Th e World Summit Goal, Costs and Benefi ts. Fish and Fisheries , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 174–85. Young, Oran R. (2012). Sugaring Off : Enduring Insights from Long-term Research on Environmental Governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 87–105. Zhang, ZhongXiang (2009). Multilateral Trade Measures in a Post 2012 Climate Change Regime. Nota Di Lavoro Fundazzione Eni Enrico Mattei.
99781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd781472580702_Ch08_Final_txt_print.indd 332020 55/21/2015/21/2015 99:50:06:50:06 PMPM